Movies you've just watched

[Zen]

Aaaah it's a retcon. Not as badly done as Leia also being related to the guy.

People attempting to "analyze" the Original Trilogy without realizing what was retconned is probably my biggest pet peeve as a Star Wars fan, after people who insist on watching them in "chronological order".

"Retro-conning" , I had to look it up
I've already conceded that i'm on shaky ground with the Vader/daddy thing. Mea culpa.

Holy fuck! I'm a retro-conner, thats hilarious

[Skykid]

Your language here is so vague that I can only guess at what you're trying to say. You seem to be saying that movies contain something other than their content, in direct contradiction to my understanding of English. By extension you imply that actor performances and 'directorial qualities' (whatever the FUCK that means) are not part of the content of a movie.

Lol, reading is hard.

Seeing as you're the only one who failed to understand language here, I'll try to be civil and break it down for you.

Directorial qualities and actor performances are of course content of a movie, how could they not be? What I said is that people tend to focus in on the narrative aspects they dislike, such as Ewoks, rather than directorial qualities, which of course influence and form actor's performances. Where Kirschner could get the most out of Harrison Ford, Marquand simply couldn't, because they're two different people with different skill levels.

What are 'directorial qualities'? Well, the director will interpret the script via his actors, cinematographer, visual design and editing choices, and occasionally battle with the producing team regarding his/her vision. Ultimately the finished product should be personal to their abilities, ideas and hard graft.

For example, Empire is considered 'darker' in tone. On one hand the script is part of this, on the other the director will control the interpretation of that darkness on film. When Han Solo says "Well then I'll see you in hell", he could have done so with a cheeky smile and then a lighthearted jingle could have played in the background. Instead he bellows "Well then I'll see you in hell!" at the grunt trying to save his life, and hightails it out the door.

How exactly does Empire being dark fall outside of 'directorial qualities'? Was the director unaware that he was making the movie dark?

No, the opposite. He directed the movie to encompass or amplify that tone.

You say these major themes were "done with impeccable grace" but you don't elaborate defend or support that statement in ANY way, so I can't say anything meaningful in response except "No they bloody weren't."

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Empire's themes are handled extremely well considering the source material is a campy sci-fi space adventure for little boys who like robots and laser guns. Everyone considers Empire to be dark. If you don't you're either blind or emotionally stunted.

Empire is the weakest of the OT

And basically this is the end of our conversation. You've long ago placed yourself in the unholy quad of terrible opinions alongside Obiwanshinobi, Drum and Obscura, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. If you think Empire is the weakest of the OT, the argument is null. You haven't the faculties to identify why it's exactly the opposite, and that's your personal failure. Please don't tell me it's a matter of taste; it's not. It's a matter of fact.

[BryanM]

If The Phantom Menace had come out in 1977 instead, it would have had largely the same outcome. Yoda would be much less popular and we'd all be about the gungans.

My mistake, I meant Admiral Piett.

Ah, that lucky ducky survives because we're watching a scene in a movie. The function of the scene is to show the good guys getting away, and then to segue back to the good guys. If Vader committed another on-screen murder in that scene, the scene would suddenly draw attention away from the escape and back to how Vader is an asshole. Additionally, it would be really bad story design if you repeat the same exact sequence within two seconds. (Repetition is the death of joy.)

Discussing character-based motivations here is almost always inserting content that isn't in the original material - Lucas doesn't write that way. They're the classical "and then this happens" action sequence scripts.

The less control he has, the better things go. His ex wife's contributions in editing are criminally underrated.

You haven't the faculties to identify why it's exactly the opposite, and that's your personal failure.

You don't have to call people stupid just because they deviate from your ideals.

I think there's some weird things you've got positive opinions on, but you're not subhuman filth for being strange.

"It's a fucking movie."

[Skykid]

I didn't say he was stupid, I said he was wrong because he is unable to identify actual qualities of filmmaking that make up the work.

Incidentally you're also completely incorrect with your assessment that the qualities of the OT only exist through rose tinted lenses. The question is not about nostalgia, it's about film as an artform and a science, and all the building blocks that go with it.

The prequels would never be viewed as positively as you maintain they would if they came out in '77 because they're fucking shit. That shouldn't be so hard to digest unless you can't actually see what you're looking at, which is my belief.

There's nothing "idealistic" about any of this either. If you think the prequel backlash was entirely a result of butthurt nerds wearing rose tinted glasses - which you do - then you've got it completely wrong. The mammoth backlash is because they're piss poor movies, and should have been handled with a lot more care.

[Mischief Maker]

My mistake, I meant Admiral Piett.

Ah, that lucky ducky survives because we're watching a scene in a movie. The function of the scene is to show the good guys getting away, and then to segue back to the good guys. If Vader committed another on-screen murder in that scene, the scene would suddenly draw attention away from the escape and back to how Vader is an asshole. Additionally, it would be really bad story design if you repeat the same exact sequence within two seconds. (Repetition is the death of joy.)

Discussing character-based motivations here is almost always inserting content that isn't in the original material - Lucas doesn't write that way. They're the classical "and then this happens" action sequence scripts.

So they filmed all those "Oh shit!" reaction shots of Admiral Piett seeing the Falcon escape then watching Vader walk out of the room, then took the time to edit them into the film, because they were just piecing this thing together at random like some kind of Andy Warhol experiment?

[Volteccer_Jack]

You're grasping at fucking straws, man. The point of that scene is to have the good guys get away while Luke and Vader stare wistfully out their respective windows dreaming of the world where they can get married and settle down together. The reason everybody in the room is nervous (not just Piett) is because we need a clear communication to the audience that after being chased for the entire duration of the movie, the good guys are FINALLY safe, and since half the plot was the good guys being in danger when they thought they were safe, the only way to show this is to include a scene of the Empire looking upset. From a writing perspective, there's nothing to be gained by showing Vader execute somebody in this scene, and from a character perspective there's no reason to assume that Vader needs to kill this guy. Wanting Empire to be the best Star Wars movie doesn't make it so.

No outcome? You call a complete shift in the relationship between the characters, the nature of the conflict, and the stakes involved "no outcome?"

Before Empire, the rebels are heroic underdogs, after Empire, nothing has changed. Before Empire, Han and Leia are extremely interested in the inside of eachother's mouths, after Empire, they still are. Before Empire, Luke is a naive whiny brat, at the end of Empire he's still a naive whiny brat. Nothing fucking changes. The changes that you seem to be imagining involving Luke and Vader don't even occur until Jedi, which is exactly what I was saying before about how middle entries in trilogies are boring wastes of time; none of the important plot developments are allowed to happen in the middle entry because there's already a sequel in the works.

And without ESB's whole underlying subplot of whether or not Luke will turn evil, his motivation in ROTJ to reverse that scheme and instead redeem Darth Vader makes no sense!

Except that's not an underlying subplot, it's just a bunch of crap that Yoda won't shut up about, which we have no reason to believe. The only time we are ever shown any indication of Luke turning evil is in Return of the Jedi, where it is, to phrase this in the way which will most annoy Skykid, presented with impeccable grace.

You remind me of a story director Edgar Wright told about going to a midnight cemetery screening of "Suspiria" and having it ruined by an audience full of hipsters like you, snarking for the sake of snark the whole way through.

That wasn't snark. I'm dead fucking serious. Why do you think I prefaced it by saying it was real talk? The first time I saw the big Shammalamma at the end of Empire I was torn between laughing and cringing. It's utterly fucking stupid, and a Keanu performance would legitimately have been a better way to handle that scene. The way Leia doesn't care very much about everyone she knows getting blown up was also pretty fucking dumb, but at least in that case they had the good sense to shove it under the rug and ignore it, whereas Empire's idiocy got every spotlight imaginable.

Directorial qualities and actor performances are of course content of a movie, how could they not be? What I said is that people tend to focus in on the narrative aspects they dislike, such as Ewoks, rather than directorial qualities, which of course influence and form actor's performances. Where Kirschner could get the most out of Harrison Ford, Marquand simply couldn't, because they're two different people with different skill levels.

What are 'directorial qualities'? Well, the director will interpret the script via his actors, cinematographer, visual design and editing choices, and occasionally battle with the producing team regarding his/her vision. Ultimately the finished product should be personal to their abilities, ideas and hard graft.

For example, Empire is considered 'darker' in tone. On one hand the script is part of this, on the other the director will control the interpretation of that darkness on film. When Han Solo says "Well then I'll see you in hell", he could have done so with a cheeky smile and then a lighthearted jingle could have played in the background. Instead he bellows "Well then I'll see you in hell!" at the grunt trying to save his life, and hightails it out the door.

Han saying "Well then I'll see you in hell" is a narrative aspect, just like Ewoks. You haven't made any distinctions here, despite typing a bunch of words. So why did the director choose to make the Ewoks shitty and annoying? That's a directorial quality.

It sounds like what's actually happening is that you think other people are focusing in on the wrong content. Which would be fine, but you haven't made any actual argument for WHY certain content should be focused on over other content. Why do you apparently think that the presentation of a few of Han's lines has a greater impact on the quality of a movie than the presentation of the Ewoks, which half of Jedi fucking revolves around?

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Empire's themes are handled extremely well

"But why/how are they handled well? Explain yourself"
"T-t-they just aaaaaaarrrrrreeeee"
Okay, so your opinion has no basis or value. Message received.

he is unable to identify actual qualities of filmmaking that make up the work.

Apparently so are you, since I explicitly asked you and the answer you gave was rambling self-contradictory nonsense.

[Skykid]

Han saying "Well then I'll see you in hell" is a narrative aspect, just like Ewoks.

Yes it's a narrative aspect, but if you could read fucking words I was talking about the way the director chose to have the line delivered.

You haven't made any distinctions here, despite typing a bunch of words.

Yes, seemingly in a language you can't understand.

So why did the director choose to make the Ewoks shitty and annoying? That's a directorial quality.

No, it's a directorial failing you halfwit. It's also arguably a scripting failing too, since they would have been better exed in the preliminary stage. A better director may well have managed to make them less shitty, annoying and intrusive though. Regardless, Marquand's handling of the climatic scenes both in and outside of the warring fleet is handled very well indeed.

It sounds like what's actually happening is that you think other people are focusing in on the wrong content. Which would be fine, but you haven't made any actual argument for WHY certain content should be focused on over other content.

That's not quite right. All content can be viewed in summary. What I said was that people tend to zone in on prominent things they dislike (like Ewoks) and then write off the entire thing as if no redeeming features exist, hence the "pile of shit" appraisal. Jedi isn't a pile of shit: it has good aspects that elevate it and are worth recognising.

Why do you apparently think that the presentation of a few of Han's lines has a greater impact on the quality of a movie than the presentation of the Ewoks, which half of Jedi fucking revolves around?

I never said anything like that. You're just talking bollocks now.

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Empire's themes are handled extremely well

"But why/how are they handled well? Explain yourself"
"T-t-they just aaaaaaarrrrrreeeee"
Okay, so your opinion has no basis or value. Message received.

No, your opinion has no basis or value, as I already pointed out when you designated Empire the "worst of the OT".

Someone whose critical abilities are that poor and that out of sync with reality doesn't deserve anyone wasting their time with a detailed breakdown of how film functions as an artform or at a component level. Even if you got the thesis you seem to need, it would fall on deaf ears anyway. You'd just watch Empire again with the same nerfed cognitive function and come to the same nerfed conclusion. Forget about it.

[Mischief Maker]

The only time we are ever shown any indication of Luke turning evil is in Return of the Jedi, where it is, to phrase this in the way which will most annoy Skykid, presented with impeccable grace.

I see.

So in ESB when Luke entered the cave, fought a vision of Darth Vader, then saw his face inside Vader's helmet, what was the actual meaning of that scene?

[Zen]

No quarter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnQKbWTvFd8

[Lord Satori]

Why are people bitching about Star Wars again? Just watch the damn movies and have fun!

[Skykid]

For the record when people post YouTube links instead of using words to form a response, being in China I have to jump through a few hoops to see what it is you want me to see - so it's best if you don't bother.

That said:

I think there's some weird things you've got positive opinions on, but you're not subhuman filth for being strange.

I assume by that you're suggesting that it's weird to consider Ocarina of Time to be a salient piece of software, and by the same rationale you're also suggesting that you think it's garbage.

Believe me, if you think OoT is garbage you've spent far too long pondering the positives and negatives of moe anime, which I assure you is only secondary to Asian Soap Operas in the planetary library of televisual dog shit that should be cleansed from the earth to raise the global IQ by two standard deviations.

No quarter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnQKbWTvFd8

I do my best to get a point across. It's frustrating to either type something out very clearly and then have it pointlessly questioned by someone who didn't actually properly read the words, or realise you're engaging in an argument whereby no matter what logic you offer it's impossible to get through the wall that separates the ears from the brain.

That said I am under the impression that some people haven't even properly watched the material we're discussing, which is an incredibly dishonest waste of time to all involved.

[Volteccer_Jack]

So in ESB when Luke entered the cave, fought a vision of Darth Vader, then saw his face inside Vader's helmet, what was the actual meaning of that scene?

At what point in that scene does Luke do or say ANYTHING to indicate that he is in danger of turning to the dark side? You're arguing that Luke has an internal conflict "because the writers said so", despite all of Luke's words, decisions, and actions directly contradicting it. Even if I were to go along with that, I can't call it anything but terrible storytelling. Throughout Empire Luke is the same naive whiny heroic idiot he was in ANH. You can tell me that it was foreshadowing and I'd buy that, but the fact remains that it amounts to exactly jack crap in Empire, and all the value lies in his portrayal in Jedi.

No, it's a directorial failing you halfwit.

The post that started this consisted of you bitching that people were focusing on the Ewoks INSTEAD OF the 'directorial' shit. So yeah, your language has been sloppy as fuck, and you can throw around all the insults you want and hide behind all the imagined expertise that you want, but the posts you've made are still vague and self-contradictory and contain precious little discussion of anything that actually occurs in the movies, to the extent that you've still provided no information about WHY you like Empire more than Jedi, except that you think the director handled Harrison Ford better.

[Skykid]

The post that started this consisted of you bitching that people were focusing on the Ewoks INSTEAD OF the 'directorial' shit.

I wasn't bitching: I said it's irritating that Jedi, while admittedly the weakest, is often labelled a "piece of shit" because of Ewoks, and everything else that's decent in it is summarily lumped into the same pot. I've explained this so many times already it's borderline slapstick.

So yeah, your language has been sloppy as fuck

Nonsense, your reading comprehension has been sloppy as fuck. And with that in mind, AND that you continually choose to go against the consensus where SW and gaming opinion is concerned, seemingly for the sake of argument or simply because you haven't paid enough attention to the material you're downplaying, why in your right mind would you expect me to entertain you with an in-depth analysis of why Empire is superior to Jedi?

If you want the answer try watching the two movies with less obstinate preconceptions and more attention to detail. It's plain as day and right in-front of your eyes.

[Durandal]

So in ESB when Luke entered the cave, fought a vision of Darth Vader, then saw his face inside Vader's helmet, what was the actual meaning of that scene?

At what point in that scene does Luke do or say ANYTHING to indicate that he is in danger of turning to the dark side?

Oh, it seems you must be talking about the novelization of Empire, whereas everyone else in this thread is talking about the movie. You know, movies, where cinematography can be used as an effective storytelling tool, from shot composition to camera angles. A movie doesn't necessarily have to resort to inner monologues like a second rate anime in order to flesh out character motivations, nor does it have to resort to painfully obvious actions like Anakin killing a bunch of kids in order to make it abundantly clear that he's eeeevil. Atmosphere and subtle actions can express more than a few sentences. Subtlety is a keyword here.

This isn't some 2deep4u nonsense, we're talking about Star Wars here. The fact that you misconstrued the palpable dread in the bridge at the end of the Fillenium Malcon escape scene as a necessary reaction to make it obvious that the bad guys lost and the good guys won rather than comprehending the disastrous implications for everyone in charge of the ship as shown by the heavy mood and Vader walking out of the room without saying a word makes me believe you are either being willfully ignorant or have watched the movies with an incredibly narrow mindset.

Was there anything previously in the movies that showed Luke being in danger of turning to the Dark Side? Not really. But that's not what that fight in the cave was about. Rather, it was a manifestation of Luke's fears and doubts of turning to the Dark Side.

[Skykid]

makes me believe you are either being willfully ignorant or have watched the movies with an incredibly narrow mindset.

Shit, at this point my money's on both.

[Skykid]

Holy smokes, a new Plinkett review: Star Wars The Force Awakens.

One hour is spent talking about the evils of Disney and useless bullshit which barely ties into TFA itself, and the other spent mostly explaining how TFA is overly similar to ANH because suits wanted to play it safe, other than really talking about what made TFA work or not work. Honestly, this semi-review and most of the skits seemed rather weaksauce to me. As if they wanted to fill up time not talking about TFA and have a balanced opinion to not piss off any Patrons.

Just finished it, didn't have any real issues with it. The first 50 minutes is basically a recap on the previous six films, but it's additional content rather than entirely rehashed Plinkett points. I was in especial disbelief at the excerpt quoted from online "journalists" praising the prequels - what in the actual fuck? Hilariously embarrassing, but a good segment in terms of entertainment.

The Force Awakens section thereafter is fair and he raises some good points. I didn't pick up on the overly comedic aspect (I was aware humour was there - just not quite so much of it) and more importantly the A-Sexual tone of the movie. The latter was quite a pertinent observation that tied in well with the diversity of its casting, considering that these days all we ever hear is equality of everything. But the sexlessness of the movie definitely had an impact on how we relate to male and female characters versus how we understood the attractions between characters in the OT. They were relatable in a completely human sense: Han wanted to fuck Leia, Leia wanted to fuck Han. Luke wanted to fuck Leia, but only until he knew he was her sister, after which he wanted to fuck Yoda.

But all in all I enjoyed the return of Plinkett, it was an entertaining two hours. More importantly Stolaska made valid criticisms that he overlooked when RLM first did their FA feedback post premiere viewing, which restored some faith in his critical abilities after such failings as Jurassic World, Independence Day: Resurgence, and the continued fantasy that Leonardo DiCaprio can't act.

[Shoryukev]

So in ESB when Luke entered the cave, fought a vision of Darth Vader, then saw his face inside Vader's helmet, what was the actual meaning of that scene?

I always thought that was self explanatory. The scenes leading up to that shows him struggling to learn the ways of the force and getting very frustrated with Yoda. Yoda tells him that he will not need his weapons where he is going, and Luke gives him this look of "shut your mouth you old bat", shrugs....and straps on his belt. The scene that follows is somewhat confusing, but one thing I've always gotten out of it is that when he sees his own face inside the helmet it was a warning of what he could become if he allows himself to be seduced by the darkside.

The movie may not make us listen to his inner monologues or make Luke physically speak to let us know of his internal conflicts, but they are most definitely there. I rather enjoy this type of storytelling to being upfront and blunt about it. The use of theming in a film is a very powerful tool.

I've been watching the original trilogy since I was 4-5 years old.....so I'm attached to it, but I think it appeals to so many people for a reason.

[soprano1]

The Black Cat (1934)
Haunting performance by Lugosi and Karloff, especially before the end.

[soprano1]

The Raven (1935)
More of the same as The Black Cat, nice reference of Frankenstein by Karloff himself.

[Mischief Maker]

I always thought that was self explanatory.

It was. I was being sarcastic.

[EmperorIng]

A few unwanted developments mean I will be by my lonesome this weekend. However, this may finally be a good time to go through my horror movie backlog.

I have a blu-ray of Halloween sitting, unwatched*, since last October. I'm sure the movie is dated as all hell, but maybe I can be swept in for a spooky ride nonetheless.

*likewise City of the Dead**, but I think I picked that up a video shop less to watch and more for the novelty of owning a Fulci film.

**aka Zombi: Flesh Eaters 2: Part 4?

[lilmanjs]

SPECTRE
Action out the ass, plot barely able to sustain the movie. They must of known they had a very bad plot, and stuffed this thing with all the action they could. Even more than most bond movies. Needless to say, the villain was pretty poorly thought out. I didn't even feel like he needed to die only other than because he was so flippin annoying. Overall a decent, but not worth rewatching Bond. What a shame, as it could have been something good!

[soprano1]

Island of Lost Souls (1932)
First adaptation of Island of Dr. Moreau. Never read the book, so can't compare them. Lugosi plays a small secondary role, but does a great job at it. Make up is pretty good, the man-beasts look really horrific.

[kaicooper]

Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me 1992
i understand why they hate it..but its underrated Gem honestly
and specially when u watch the full Extended and Deleted scenes from
Twin Peaks Missing Pieces ..u'll love it more

i think i'll make my own FULL MOVIE EDIT to enjoy it more

========

gonna watch

Elephant man
Wild at Hearts
Lost Highway

[GaijinPunch]

Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me 1992
i understand why they hate it..but its underrated Gem honestly
and specially when u watch the full Extended and Deleted scenes from
Twin Peaks Missing Pieces ..u'll love it more

i think i'll make my own FULL MOVIE EDIT to enjoy it more

========

gonna watch

Elephant man
Wild at Hearts
Lost Highway

I need to watch the uncut one. Just saw the film in the theaters. One of the projectionists picked it out... explained he loved it for the reasons everyone else hated it. It is indeed underrated. Dark and weird AF. Amazing soundtrack.

[emphatic]

Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me 1992
i understand why they hate it..but its underrated Gem honestly
and specially when u watch the full Extended and Deleted scenes from
Twin Peaks Missing Pieces ..u'll love it more

i think i'll make my own FULL MOVIE EDIT to enjoy it more

========

gonna watch

Elephant man
Wild at Hearts
Lost Highway

FanEdit exists already.

[boagman]

Skykid: the "John Wick Chapter 2" trailer is officially out and the movie's releasing in February.

Just thought you should have your calendar clear is all.

[Xyga]

Q for you shmuppies; if you had to keep only THREE of Dario Argento's films, which would they be ?

(sub-question: would you leave Phenomena out definitely, even as a potential #4 ?)

[Stevens]

Lots of horror lately of varying quality. I think i'm going to do a round up at the end of the month.

Does anyone else avoid trailers of movies they really want to see?

[Ixmucane2]

The Secret Life of Pets
In New York, Max, a domestic dog, disappears after a disagreement with Duke, his new co-pet. Max's friends go looking for him.

As can be expected given IMG's precedents, a mixture of greatness and immaturity. But they are improving.

Great aspects include:

• A very coherent scenery and lighting style, realistic but carefully and beautifully exaggerated.
• Character designs, particularly Snowball the rabbit.
• A plot with three dead characters, one of which brutally killed on screen, and the others realistically worried for their life.
• Excellent action scenes, particularly vehicle accidents.

Disappointments come from the general structure of the plot.

• A very large cast of characters, which would be great for a TV series but wastes time with useless companions tagging along in a straightforward quest plot. Many of them don't do anything useful; some are an outright liability.
• Preference for quick jokes and action over more interesting reflections. All scenes involving relationships between pets and humans are deep, full of feeling or satire, and sadly out of place.
• Preference for laughs and fireworks over cohesive storytelling. For example, there's a long sequence in which Max and Duke visit a sausage factory: incredibly fun, but having them eat a good lunch doesn't really advance the plot. The same can be said for the hilarious citation of Super Mario Bros. which, despite being very faithful, very creative and very well shot, seriously disrupts the chase scene it appears in.
• A silly happy ending in which someone behaves too heroically.